Just in case anyone was on the fence about whether vegans are insane...

[Burney]

There is a worrying tension in your argument here b. You seem to be suggesting that it is morally bankrupt to tackle one problem without tackling all the others. As though giving money to one charity is wrong unless you give to them all. This is remarkably unfair.

We all prioritise what we choose to care about, what we choose to act on. If your issue is vegans announcing themselves as pure and superior beings, I agree wholeheartedly.

No. My point is that I find the prioritisation of animal welfare over human strikes me as not a little immoral. And, if one changes one's life to facilitate the former while not doing so to facilitate the latter, it strikes me as undeniable that that is what one is doing.

[Burney]

Forgive me, I thought your condemnation was more all-encompassing. The ideological vegetable-botherer is a species with whom I have been intimately familiar and would tend to classify as ranging from the selfish virtue signaller to the actually mentally ill. The ones who feed their cats a vegan diet are espsecially worthy of a good kicking.

Yes. The refusal to acknowledge that cats are pure carnivores and that one's duty of care to them therefore involves feeding them meat is morally reprehensible.

Mind you, a fully consistent animal rights loon would say that even owning a pet is exploitation and thus verboten.

[Sir C]

Yes. The refusal to acknowledge that cats are pure carnivores and that one's duty of care to them therefore involves feeding them meat is morally reprehensible.

Mind you, a fully consistent animal rights loon would say that even owning a pet is exploitation and thus verboten.

I certainly don't 'own' my cats in any meaningful way, since they make most of the decisions about how I live

[Burney]

Yes. The refusal to acknowledge that cats are pure carnivores and that one's duty of care to them therefore involves feeding them meat is morally reprehensible.

Mind you, a fully consistent animal rights loon would say that even owning a pet is exploitation and thus verboten.

Mate, you've had them sterilised and you make them live in a walled compound to ensure they can't escape.

You're basically Josef Fritzl for cats.

[Peter]

No. My point is that I find the prioritisation of animal welfare over human strikes me as not a little immoral. And, if one changes one's life to facilitate the former while not doing so to facilitate the latter, it strikes me as undeniable that that is what one is doing.

I am not convinced that is strictly immoral, nor do I think it is an easy sell. We can all argue which behaviours contribute towards human suffering and we would not end up with an entirely clear picture. Owning an iPad, using an aeroplane, driving a car, liking football.

One fact that is difficult to deny is that centuries of progress which have raised the standard of living and life expectancy for humans across the globe has been coupled with a system that sees animals treated more cruelly than at any other point in history. I really dont see any hypocrisy in acknowledging that and not wanting to be a part of it.

Of course, one may buy the wrong mobile phone but I dont think that completely invalidates the point above.

THe bigger issue is the question of moral superiority. As soon as one attempts to make or portray that argument one is a bit of a ****.

[Monty92]

morally superior to someone who doesn't give a **** about the horrors of factory farming and other facets of modern animal welfare and has absolutely zero inclination to not play a part in it. How could you not? You have laid out your position on how appalling it is. You may acknowledge that you aren't whiter than white, but you can't deny there is some moral judgement at play here.

So by your own standards, does this not make you a bit of a ****?

I would obviously never suggest such a thing, I am merely playing your own argument back to you.

I am not convinced that is strictly immoral, nor do I think it is an easy sell. We can all argue which behaviours contribute towards human suffering and we would not end up with an entirely clear picture. Owning an iPad, using an aeroplane, driving a car, liking football.

One fact that is difficult to deny is that centuries of progress which have raised the standard of living and life expectancy for humans across the globe has been coupled with a system that sees animals treated more cruelly than at any other point in history. I really dont see any hypocrisy in acknowledging that and not wanting to be a part of it.

Of course, one may buy the wrong mobile phone but I dont think that completely invalidates the point above.

THe bigger issue is the question of moral superiority. As soon as one attempts to make or portray that argument one is a bit of a ****.

[Burney]

I am not convinced that is strictly immoral, nor do I think it is an easy sell. We can all argue which behaviours contribute towards human suffering and we would not end up with an entirely clear picture. Owning an iPad, using an aeroplane, driving a car, liking football.

One fact that is difficult to deny is that centuries of progress which have raised the standard of living and life expectancy for humans across the globe has been coupled with a system that sees animals treated more cruelly than at any other point in history. I really dont see any hypocrisy in acknowledging that and not wanting to be a part of it.

Of course, one may buy the wrong mobile phone but I dont think that completely invalidates the point above.

THe bigger issue is the question of moral superiority. As soon as one attempts to make or portray that argument one is a bit of a ****.

Of course it's immoral. Our entire moral structure is predicated on the prioritisation of human beings. If a driver chose to swerve to avoid a dog knowing they would hit a human instead, they would be prosecuted for having made an entirely unacceptable moral decision. By the same token, if someone chooses to support the RSPCA over the NSPCC (for instance), they are guilty of exactly the same moral failure, but cannot be prosecuted for it. They are no less guilty of it, however. The same applies to those who think it's more important to take steps not to eat animals than to avoid the exploitation and suffering of their fellow human beings.

You acknowledge that our progress has gone hand-in-hand with the increased suffering of animals but fail to make the connection between the two, which seems disingenuous to say the least. Our 'progress' has relied and continues to rely on that suffering. How much human suffering are you prepared to tolerate for an end to highly-efficient (albeit morally-repugnant) factory farming? Would you be happy to price meat back out of the reach of the poor in order to achieve this? What gives you that right? How can you possibly justify such technological regression on the basis of your personal feelings?

Clearly, if a vegan believes the eating of animals to be morally wrong, the inescapable conclusion is that they believe that by not doing so, they are morally superior to those who do. They might not say that, but clearly and undeniably that is what they believe just as I believe that because I don't rape people I'm morally superior to a rapist. The sense of superiority is implicit in the action (or lack thereof).

[Peter]

Of course it's immoral. Our entire moral structure is predicated on the prioritisation of human beings. If a driver chose to swerve to avoid a dog knowing they would hit a human instead, they would be prosecuted for having made an entirely unacceptable moral decision. By the same token, if someone chooses to support the RSPCA over the NSPCC (for instance), they are guilty of exactly the same moral failure, but cannot be prosecuted for it. They are no less guilty of it, however. The same applies to those who think it's more important to take steps not to eat animals than to avoid the exploitation and suffering of their fellow human beings.

You acknowledge that our progress has gone hand-in-hand with the increased suffering of animals but fail to make the connection between the two, which seems disingenuous to say the least. Our 'progress' has relied and continues to rely on that suffering. How much human suffering are you prepared to tolerate for an end to highly-efficient (albeit morally-repugnant) factory farming? Would you be happy to price meat back out of the reach of the poor in order to achieve this? What gives you that right? How can you possibly justify such technological regression on the basis of your personal feelings?

Clearly, if a vegan believes the eating of animals to be morally wrong, the inescapable conclusion is that they believe that by not doing so, they are morally superior to those who do. They might not say that, but clearly and undeniably that is what they believe just as I believe that because I don't rape people I'm morally superior to a rapist. The sense of superiority is implicit in the action (or lack thereof).

Firstly (and this is also a response to Monty) it is ridiculous to suggest that any behaviour deemed self sacrificial or ethical implies a sense of moral superiority. It may carry with it a sense of self satisfaction but that is hardly the same thing. Nor is how one may feel and how one chooses to express it the same thing. I dont care what you eat any more than I care what your favourite drink is, or that you have preference for anal sex at Office parties.

The fact that plenty of vegans feel a sense of superiority is undeniable but I am afraid that is entirely their fault. It is not a natural result.

It is a bit ludicrous present centuries of progress as the sole result of intensive farming. How exactly has that helped the huge swathes of India that are exclusively vegetarian? How has it helped in many other countries where intensive farming isnt used? How is the consumption of cheap meat increasing life expectancy?

Cheap food has helped in some parts of the world but is also contributing to health crises in other parts- see obesity in the USA and increasingly here in Britain- the prevalence of diabetes, heart disease, cholesterol and high blood pressure. It isnt all a glorious bed of life-giving tenderloin.

And finally, our moral structure is not predicated on the prioritisation of human beings. The example of the charity shows you havent actually changed your stance from what I suspected originally- that there must be moral equivalence across all your activities else all are rendered meaningless.

[Peter]

morally superior to someone who doesn't give a **** about the horrors of factory farming and other facets of modern animal welfare and has absolutely zero inclination to not play a part in it. How could you not? You have laid out your position on how appalling it is. You may acknowledge that you aren't whiter than white, but you can't deny there is some moral judgement at play here.

So by your own standards, does this not make you a bit of a ****?

I would obviously never suggest such a thing, I am merely playing your own argument back to you.

One may consider one's own choice to be morally superior, by definition. That is NOT the same as developing an ideology to present to the world that revolves around you being better than everyone else.

For example, one may believe this choice to be superior while other remain inferior. One may believe that we are all entitled to an opinion on this and everything else. One may believe in the sheer delight of dietary choice and marvel at man's capacity to choose for himself.

Either that or Berni is a **** for believing himself superior to a rapist.

[Ash]

I certainly don't 'own' my cats in any meaningful way, since they make most of the decisions about how I live

Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.